Few places on Earth embody geopolitical contradiction quite like Kinmen and Matsu. These tiny island clusters—Kinmen visible from mainland China’s Xiamen with the naked eye, separated by a mere few kilometers of water—remain under Taiwan’s control more than seven decades after the Chinese Civil War concluded on the mainland. Their existence represents one of history’s most enduring territorial anomalies: Chinese territory controlled by a government that no longer governs China, lying closer to Beijing’s reach than to Taipei’s embrace.
For Singapore, these islands serve as both mirror and warning—a reminder of how small territories can become outsized symbols in great power competition, and how geography and history conspire to trap nations between larger forces.
The 1949 Retreat: An Incomplete Victory
The Fragmentary Nature of Nationalist Defeat
When Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang (KMT) government fled to Taiwan in 1949, the retreat was less an orderly strategic withdrawal than a desperate evacuation. Yet amid the chaos, the Nationalists managed to retain control of a surprising number of coastal islands—a patchwork of territories that included:
- The Kinmen archipelago (formerly Quemoy): A cluster of 12 islands just 10 kilometers from Xiamen, with the main island of Kinmen hosting significant military installations
- The Matsu Islands: Four main islands and several islets lying off the coast of Fuzhou in Fujian province
- The Wuqiu Islands: Tiny outposts between Kinmen and Matsu
- Various islands along the Zhejiang coast: Including the Dachen Islands, far to the north
This retention was partly strategic—these islands could serve as potential launching points for a counter-invasion—and partly circumstantial. The nascent People’s Liberation Army (PLA), exhausted from years of civil war and lacking significant amphibious assault capabilities, could not immediately capture every offshore position.
Why These Islands Mattered
The offshore islands represented something beyond mere territory. They embodied three critical dimensions of the unresolved civil war:
Military Significance: These islands provided forward observation posts and potential staging areas. Control of Kinmen meant the ability to monitor and potentially threaten Xiamen, a major port city. For the Communists, the continued Nationalist presence represented an intolerable threat to coastal security.
Symbolic Importance: For the KMT, holding territory within sight of the mainland sustained the fiction that they remained the legitimate government of all China, temporarily displaced but not defeated. For the Communists, the existence of Nationalist-held territory along China’s coast was a visible reminder of incomplete victory.
International Dimensions: In the emerging Cold War context, these islands became pawns in superpower rivalry. The United States, committed to containing communism, had strong incentives to prevent their capture, while the Soviet Union supported Chinese efforts to complete the revolution.
The Gradual Attrition
Between 1949 and 1955, the PLA systematically captured most of the northern offshore islands. The Dachen Islands fell in 1955 after sustained military pressure forced an evacuation assisted by the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Other islands were abandoned as indefensible or fell to Chinese assault.
By the mid-1950s, only Kinmen and Matsu remained under Nationalist control—not because they were more defensible, but because they had become too symbolically important to both sides to resolve through military action alone.
The Artillery Duels: 1954-1979
The First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955)
The first major test came in September 1954 when PLA artillery began sustained bombardment of Kinmen. Over several months, hundreds of thousands of shells fell on the islands. The crisis escalated dangerously when the United States and Taiwan signed a Mutual Defense Treaty in December 1954, and the U.S. Congress passed the Formosa Resolution in January 1955, authorizing President Eisenhower to use military force to defend Taiwan and “related positions.”
The crisis revealed several dynamics that would persist for decades:
- The U.S. commitment was real but ambiguous: Washington would defend Taiwan proper but remained deliberately vague about the offshore islands
- The islands were militarily vulnerable but politically untouchable: Neither side could afford to lose face
- The potential for escalation was genuine: Nuclear weapons were discussed in U.S. planning circles
The Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
The most intense bombardment came in August 1958 when the PLA launched Operation Resolute Action. In the first two hours alone, approximately 30,000 shells fell on Kinmen. Over the following weeks, nearly half a million shells struck the islands.
This crisis was even more dangerous than the first. The United States deployed significant naval forces and provided air cover for resupply missions. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles publicly stated that the U.S. would defend Kinmen and Matsu if their loss appeared to be a prelude to an attack on Taiwan. President Eisenhower authorized the deployment of nuclear-capable weapons to the region.
Yet the crisis revealed something unexpected: neither side actually wanted war. The bombardment settled into a pattern—heavy shelling on odd-numbered days, no shelling on even-numbered days—allowing resupply operations to continue. This bizarre arrangement, never formally agreed upon but understood by both sides, demonstrated that the conflict had become largely symbolic.
The Long Bombardment (1958-1979)
What followed was one of the strangest military campaigns in history. For 21 years, from 1958 to 1979, Chinese artillery sporadically shelled Kinmen and Matsu. The bombardment became ritualistic—shells timed to coincide with political events or anniversaries, often carrying propaganda leaflets rather than explosives.
Residents of Kinmen adapted to an extraordinary reality. Schools and homes were built with bombproof shelters. Daily life continued around the shelling schedule. The constant bombardment actually became a source of raw material—islanders collected shell casings and melted them down to make knives, scissors, and cleavers that became famous throughout Taiwan as “Kinmen knives.”
The shelling finally ceased on January 1, 1979, coinciding with the United States’ formal diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China. The end came without announcement or ceremony—the guns simply fell silent.
Today’s Status: Anomaly Normalized
From Battlefield to Bridge
The transformation of Kinmen and Matsu from frontline battlefields to tourist destinations and economic partners with mainland China represents one of the most remarkable evolutions in modern geopolitics. The change began gradually in the 1990s and accelerated in 2001 with the establishment of the “mini three links”—direct shipping, trade, and postal services between Kinmen/Matsu and Fujian province.
Today, residents of Kinmen can take a 30-minute ferry to Xiamen. Many work in China, conduct business across the strait, and maintain family connections that predate the political division. The islands’ economies have become deeply integrated with the nearby Chinese cities of Xiamen, Quanzhou, and Fuzhou. This integration is far more extensive than between Kinmen/Matsu and Taiwan proper.
The Continuing Military Reality
Yet beneath this normalization lies unchanged military reality. Taiwan maintains substantial forces on both island groups:
- Kinmen Defense Command: Approximately 3,000-5,000 active troops, down from Cold War peaks of over 100,000
- Matsu Defense Command: Similar force levels proportional to the islands’ size
- Extensive fortifications: Hundreds of kilometers of tunnels, bunkers, and underground facilities built over decades
The islands’ military value has evolved. They no longer serve as potential launching points for counter-invasion—that scenario became implausible decades ago. Instead, they function as:
- Early warning posts: Monitoring Chinese military activity across the narrow strait
- Symbolic tripwires: Any Chinese move against them would constitute an unambiguous act of war
- Training grounds: Maintaining the Taiwan military’s readiness in a unique operational environment
The New Pressures
Recent years have seen renewed pressure on Kinmen and Matsu, though of a different character than Cold War bombardment:
Maritime Encroachment: Chinese coast guard vessels regularly patrol waters around Kinmen, sometimes entering what Taiwan considers its territorial waters. These “grey zone” operations assert Chinese presence without triggering military confrontation.
Aviation Concerns: China’s establishment of new air routes near the islands in 2024, done without consultation with Taiwan, created concerns about both civilian aviation safety and military warning time. The planned opening of Xiamen’s new international airport, mere kilometers from Kinmen, compounds these worries.
Economic Leverage: China’s ability to control ferry services, tourism flows, and economic activity creates subtle pressure. During periods of cross-strait tension, these connections can be restricted, reminding residents of their vulnerability.
Infrastructure as Politics: China’s construction of a bridge from Xiamen toward Kinmen—undertaken without Taiwan’s approval—exemplifies a new form of pressure. The project asserts Chinese sovereignty through infrastructure development while creating facts on the ground (or rather, over the water).
Singapore’s Interest: Parallels and Warnings
Geographic Vulnerability and Strategic Value
Singapore shares with Kinmen and Matsu a fundamental condition: small size and strategic location create vulnerability and value simultaneously. Just as these islands cannot survive without maintaining relationships with their larger neighbors while preserving their distinct status, Singapore has long navigated between great powers while guarding its independence.
The parallels extend beyond geography:
Economic Integration with Potential Threats: Just as Kinmen’s economy is deeply connected to Xiamen despite the political-military standoff, Singapore maintains extensive economic ties with China while hedging through security relationships with the United States and regional partners. The challenge lies in preventing economic dependence from becoming political leverage.
The Question of Defensibility: Kinmen and Matsu’s experience poses uncomfortable questions: Can small territories truly be defended against a determined larger power? Or do they survive only because the larger power chooses not to act decisively? Singapore’s substantial defense investments and conscription system reflect a determination to ensure that any potential aggressor would face genuine costs—making the choice to “not act decisively” more attractive.
Identity Amid Integration: The residents of Kinmen increasingly identify with their unique position—neither fully mainland Chinese nor typically Taiwanese, but distinctly Kinmen. Singapore similarly cultivates a specific national identity despite or perhaps because of its diverse population and regional integration.
The Grey Zone Challenge
China’s approach to Kinmen and Matsu increasingly emphasizes “grey zone” tactics—activities below the threshold of war but designed to gradually shift the status quo. These include:
- Coast guard rather than military operations
- Economic pressure rather than blockade
- Infrastructure development rather than invasion
- Incremental changes to aviation and maritime rules
Singapore faces potential grey zone challenges of its own in maritime Southeast Asia, where overlapping territorial claims and freedom of navigation issues create ongoing friction. The Kinmen example demonstrates how grey zone pressure can be sustained over years, gradually normalizing new realities.
The Limits of Great Power Protection
Perhaps the most sobering lesson from Kinmen and Matsu concerns the reliability of great power protection. The United States committed to defending these islands during the 1950s crises and deployed nuclear-capable forces to back that commitment. Yet American support always contained ambiguity—a deliberate vagueness about whether the commitment extended to the offshore islands as fully as to Taiwan proper.
For Singapore, this reinforces long-standing strategic assumptions:
Self-Reliance Primacy: No external power’s commitment is absolute. Singapore’s defense posture assumes it must be capable of independent action, at least initially.\
Alliance Management: Close relationships with major powers provide security benefits, but over-dependence on any single power creates vulnerability. Singapore’s multi-alignment approach—strong ties with both the U.S. and China, plus regional partnerships—reflects this lesson.
The Value of Ambiguity: Just as strategic ambiguity about U.S. commitments served deterrence purposes regarding Taiwan, some level of uncertainty about how various powers might respond to challenges against Singapore may serve stability.
Economic Interdependence as Double-Edged Sword
The Kinmen experience vividly illustrates how economic integration can both reduce and increase strategic vulnerability:
Reduced Vulnerability: Deep economic ties give mainland China interests in Kinmen’s stability and prosperity. Disrupting these connections would harm Chinese coastal cities that benefit from them. This creates a form of mutual deterrence through interdependence.
Increased Vulnerability: Yet China’s control of the tap—its ability to restrict ferries, tourism, and trade—provides leverage. During the February 2024 incident where a Chinese fishing boat capsized near Kinmen, leading to two deaths, Beijing’s response included restrictions on cross-strait travel that significantly impacted Kinmen’s economy.
Singapore faces a more complex version of this challenge. As a major trading hub with extensive links to China, ASEAN neighbors, and Western economies, Singapore benefits from integration but must manage the risks of any party using economic ties as coercive leverage.
The Unfinished Civil War
Political Limbo
Kinmen and Matsu exist in a state of permanent exception. They are:
- Part of Taiwan administratively, with residents voting in Taiwan elections and receiving Taiwan government services
- Geographically and historically part of Fujian province
- Economically integrated with mainland Chinese cities
- Militarily defended by Taiwan but vulnerable to Chinese pressure
- Subject to different regulations than Taiwan proper in many areas
This anomalous status reflects the broader unresolved nature of the Chinese Civil War. The 1949 conflict never formally ended—no peace treaty was signed, no final territorial settlement reached. Kinmen and Matsu are the most visible manifestations of this incomplete resolution.
The Taiwanese Perspective Shift
Interestingly, sentiment within Taiwan proper regarding Kinmen and Matsu has evolved significantly. During the authoritarian KMT era (1949-1987), the offshore islands were celebrated as bastions of resistance, proof of the government’s determination to one day return to the mainland.
As Taiwan has democratized and developed a distinct Taiwanese identity, particularly among younger generations, attitudes have shifted. Many Taiwanese now question whether defending islands so close to China and so far from Taiwan makes strategic sense. Some view Kinmen and Matsu as:
- Potential triggers for unwanted conflict
- Remnants of an outdated “one China” framework Taiwan has moved beyond
- Burdens rather than assets
However, Taiwan cannot simply abandon these islands. Doing so would:
- Demoralize Taiwan’s own military and population
- Signal weakness and invite further Chinese pressure
- Betray the residents of these islands, who remain predominantly pro-Taiwan despite their economic ties to China
The Chinese Perspective: Patience and Pressure
Beijing’s approach to Kinmen and Matsu has evolved from military confrontation to a strategy combining patience, economic integration, and incremental pressure. The current approach appears designed to:
Normalize Chinese Presence: Through coast guard patrols, aviation routes, and infrastructure projects, China asserts that these areas fall under its jurisdiction, gradually shifting perceptions.
Create Economic Dependence: By making the islands’ prosperity dependent on connections with Fujian, China builds leverage that can be applied during political tensions.
Demonstrate Inevitability: The message to island residents and Taiwan more broadly is that reunification is inevitable, so resistance is futile and accommodation is wise.
Avoid Premature Action: Unlike Taiwan proper, taking Kinmen and Matsu by force would achieve little strategic benefit while triggering significant international consequences. Better to wait while integration proceeds.
Potential Future Scenarios
Several plausible scenarios could reshape Kinmen and Matsu’s status:
Gradual Integration: Continued economic and social integration could lead to de facto Chinese control even without formal political change. Residents increasingly identify with and depend on the mainland, making Taiwan’s administrative control increasingly nominal.
Sudden Seizure: In a Taiwan crisis scenario, China might occupy Kinmen and Matsu quickly as a demonstration of capability and resolve while stopping short of attacking Taiwan proper. This would test American and regional responses without triggering the same level of intervention as an attack on Taiwan itself.
Special Administrative Status: A negotiated arrangement giving Kinmen and Matsu special status within a “one country, two systems” framework might appeal to residents seeking to maintain current freedoms while gaining benefits from closer mainland ties. However, Hong Kong’s experience has discredited this model.
Status Quo Maintenance: The current anomalous situation could persist indefinitely, serving all parties’ interests adequately if uneasily. Taiwan retains the islands, China gradually increases its presence and influence, and residents enjoy economic benefits while avoiding political resolution.
Implications for Regional Security
The Tripwire Effect
Kinmen and Matsu’s greatest strategic value may lie precisely in their vulnerability. Like the famous “tripwire” deployment of U.S. forces in South Korea during the Cold War, these islands ensure that any Chinese attack on Taiwan must begin with actions that unmistakably constitute aggression.
A Chinese military campaign that bypassed these islands while attacking Taiwan proper would be operationally awkward and politically questionable—why leave hostile territory in your rear? Yet attacking them first provides clear warning and demonstration of intent, potentially allowing time for Taiwan and allies to respond.
For regional security planners, including in Singapore, this demonstrates the complex strategic calculations around forward positions and tripwires. They simultaneously deter aggression and risk entrapment in unwanted conflicts.
Testing Ground for Grey Zone Warfare
China’s approach to Kinmen and Matsu increasingly serves as a laboratory for grey zone tactics that could be applied elsewhere. The combination of:
- Coast guard rather than military operations
- Economic leverage and restrictions
- Incremental infrastructure development
- Normalization of new operational patterns
…provides a playbook that could be applied to other disputed territories, including in the South China Sea where Southeast Asian nations, including Singapore as a major maritime power, have strong interests.
The Question of International Law
The status of Kinmen and Matsu poses interesting questions under international law. Are they:
- Part of Taiwan’s territorial waters and airspace?
- Part of China’s territorial claims based on geography?
- Subject to special arrangements given their history?
The ambiguity serves some parties’ interests but creates risks of miscalculation. Maritime incidents, aviation close calls, or sovereignty disputes could escalate if no clear understanding exists about applicable rules and redlines.
For Singapore, which relies heavily on international law and rules-based order for its security and prosperity, the gradual erosion of clear legal frameworks in favor of grey zone ambiguity is concerning. It suggests a future where might makes right and small states have fewer protections.
Conclusion: Living with Contradiction
Kinmen and Matsu’s story is ultimately one of adaptation to contradictory realities. These islands are simultaneously:
- War zones and tourist destinations
- Heavily militarized and economically open
- Part of Taiwan and part of China
- Symbols of division and bridges toward connection
For more than seven decades, they have embodied the unfinished Chinese Civil War while gradually building new realities that transcend that conflict. Their residents have learned to live with contradiction, maintaining multiple identities and relationships that would seem impossible in a binary world.
For Singapore, the lessons are manifold but perhaps converge on a central insight: small territories in strategically important locations must develop exceptional capabilities for managing contradictions, maintaining relationships with multiple larger powers, and adapting to changing circumstances while defending core interests. The alternative—attempting to choose sides definitively or relying entirely on any single protector—leads to vulnerability.
The offshore islands’ survival through decades of bombardment, their transformation into economic bridges, and their current navigation of renewed pressure demonstrate that geography is not destiny—but it certainly sets the terms on which smaller entities must negotiate their existence.
As great power competition intensifies in the Indo-Pacific, Singapore shares with Kinmen and Matsu the challenge of maintaining autonomy and prosperity while managing relationships with larger neighbors whose interests may not always align with its own. The offshore islands’ experience suggests that this requires constant adaptation, strategic ambiguity where appropriate, genuine defensive capabilities to raise costs of aggression, and above all, the resilience to sustain contradictions that cannot be fully resolved.
The Chinese Civil War may have ended in 1949 on the mainland, but on Kinmen and Matsu it continues—not as active combat, but as a permanent state of exception that all parties have learned to inhabit. Whether this anomalous status can persist indefinitely, or whether changing strategic circumstances will force resolution, remains one of the most intriguing questions in Asian security. The answer will have implications far beyond these small islands, extending to every small state navigating the complexities of regional order in an age of renewed great power rivalry.
China’s Strategic Police Expansion in the Pacific
The Comprehensive Approach
China’s strategy for policing in the Pacific shows a smart form of security gradualism. This means they build influence step by step. They avoid bold moves like sending in large troops right away. Instead, they use quieter ways to gain ground.
Take their police training programs. China sends experts to places like Fiji and Papua New Guinea. These experts teach local officers skills in crime fighting and border control. Such steps help island nations without seeming like a threat. For example, in 2023, China signed deals to supply patrol boats to several Pacific countries. This aids coast guard work against illegal fishing. It boosts ties without big military shows.
This method gives Pacific leaders more options. They can talk to old allies like Australia and the US. At the same time, they work with China. This balance helps them get better deals on aid and trade. Why does this matter? Pacific islands face real threats like rising seas and drug smuggling. Stronger police forces tackle these issues head-on.
China’s growing presence in Pacific policing also builds skills for the region. Local teams learn new tools and tactics. Over time, this creates safer communities. Experts from think tanks note that such help fills gaps left by limited funds. One report from the East Asia Forum highlights how China’s aid now reaches dozens of officers each year. This steady push strengthens bonds and meets local needs.
In short, this approach fosters trust through real support. It shapes the Pacific’s security without sharp conflicts.
Key Components:
- Equipment and Training: Breathalyzers, patrol boats, drones, police gear
- Embedded Officers: Long-term presence providing riot control, investigation, and traffic management training
- Surveillance Systems: Implementation of China’s “Fengqiao” village surveillance model in Solomon Islands
- Infrastructure: Funding police training academies (Samoa’s first opened in 2024)
- Data Management: Assisting with crime data collection and community response systems
Geopolitical Mechanics
The strategy operates on multiple levels:
- Capability Filling: Addressing genuine security gaps in under-resourced nations
- Presence Normalization: Making Chinese security involvement appear routine and beneficial
- Leverage Creation: Giving Pacific nations alternatives to traditional Western partners
- Access Establishment: Creating pathways for future expanded Chinese influence
China’s Minister of Public Security has emphasized creating “more professional” law enforcement teams to achieve “lasting security” in the region China’s police chief urges ‘new chapter’ of Pacific Island security cooperation | South China Morning Post, indicating long-term strategic thinking.
Escalating Geopolitical Competition
Western Counter-Responses
The competition has become increasingly visible and competitive:
- Australia: A$400 million Pacific Policing Initiative with training facilities and rapid-response capabilities
- United States: FBI office in Wellington explicitly citing Chinese influence concerns
- New Zealand: NZ$65+ million invested over five years in Pacific policing
- Interpol: Seeking to establish first Pacific base
The rivalry has reached symbolic extremes, with Australia and China literally competing to donate police vehicles to Solomon Islands on the same day before the Pacific Islands Forum.
Regional Strain and Responses
Pacific officials have expressed awareness of Chinese expansion patterns, with one PNG official comparing it to “Japanese military expansion, but Chinese expansion uses economic methods to seek control” China’s Police Security in the Pacific Islands | The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR).
Some countries have pushed back:
- Fiji: Expelled embedded Chinese police in 2024 over sovereignty concerns
- Vanuatu: Rejected Australia’s A$500 million security pact over engagement restrictions
- PNG: Delayed signing mutual defense treaty with Australia
Singapore’s Strategic Position and Impact
Singapore’s Pacific Engagement Context
Singapore’s relationship with the Pacific reflects its broader strategic approach of maintaining balanced great-power relationships while supporting multilateral frameworks. Recent developments show Singapore’s continued engagement:
Beijing’s most senior general recently met with Singapore’s defense minister on the sidelines of the Beijing Xiangshan Forum, with China expressing readiness to work with Singapore on regional stability China is ready to work with Singapore on regional stability, top military officer says | South China Morning Post.
Implications for Singapore’s Regional Strategy
1. ASEAN Unity Concerns The trend risks leaving mainland Southeast Asia more reliant on cooperation with China and Russia, increasing the geopolitical divide within ASEAN, while ASEAN’s Indo-Pacific Outlook tries to shift conversations away from geopolitics toward concrete regional priorities like connectivity and sustainable development Lowy InstituteWilson Center.
2. Multilateral Framework Pressure Singapore’s traditional support for multilateral approaches faces challenges as bilateral security deals proliferate. The competitive dynamics in the Pacific mirror tensions Singapore navigates in Southeast Asia.
3. Maritime Security Implications China’s normalized security presence in the Pacific could eventually affect maritime routes crucial to Singapore’s trade. The surveillance capabilities and data collection being established could impact intelligence sharing and maritime domain awareness.
Singapore’s Strategic Responses
Balanced Engagement: Singapore continues to engage both sides constructively, as evidenced by recent military dialogues with China while maintaining strong ties with traditional partners.
Multilateral Reinforcement: Singapore likely supports efforts to strengthen regional mechanisms that prevent zero-sum competition, similar to ASEAN’s approach of inclusive engagement.
Economic Diplomacy: Singapore’s recent agreement to assist Egypt with port digitalization demonstrates its continued focus on economic cooperation as a stabilizing factor in regional relationships.
Broader Regional Security Architecture Impact
Fragmentation Risks
The proliferation of bilateral deals with China, alongside traditional support from Australia and New Zealand, risks stretching regional unity further China’s proliferating Pacific police footprint | East Asia Forum. This mirrors challenges ASEAN faces with increasing US-China competition.
Normative Competition
China’s authoritarian policing models, including surveillance systems and data collection practices, introduce different governance norms that could influence regional security culture. This creates particular challenges for democratic partners and transparent governance advocates.
Future Trajectory
The Pacific policing competition represents a microcosm of broader US-China strategic rivalry. For Singapore, this demonstrates the importance of maintaining strategic autonomy and supporting inclusive regional frameworks that prevent the region from being divided into competing spheres of influence.
The developments suggest that great-power competition is increasingly extending beyond traditional military domains into civilian security cooperation, creating new challenges for middle powers like Singapore in managing balanced relationships while preserving regional stability and multilateral cooperation mechanisms.
Singapore’s Strategic Navigation: Scenarios in Great Power Civilian Security Competition
Executive Summary
The Pacific policing competition exemplifies how US-China rivalry is expanding beyond traditional military domains into civilian security cooperation. For Singapore, this creates complex challenges that require sophisticated strategic responses. This analysis examines four potential scenarios and Singapore’s strategic options.
Scenario 1: The Fragmentation Scenario (Probability: Medium-High)
Scenario Description
Great power competition intensifies, leading to regional fragmentation where countries are pressured to choose sides. The Pacific becomes divided between Chinese-aligned and Western-aligned security arrangements, with limited neutral space.
Key Characteristics
- Bilateral security deals proliferate, undermining multilateral frameworks
- ASEAN centrality weakens as member states align with different great powers
- Economic and security partnerships become increasingly zero-sum
- Middle powers face mounting pressure to declare allegiances
Implications for Singapore
Challenges:
- Economic Diversification Stress: Trade relationships become politicized, forcing difficult choices between economic partners
- ASEAN Unity Erosion: Singapore’s multilateral approach becomes less viable as regional consensus breaks down
- Hub Status Threat: Singapore’s role as neutral meeting ground diminishes if perceived as aligned with one side
Strategic Responses:
- Enhanced Multi-Alignment: Deepen partnerships with middle powers (Japan, South Korea, India, Australia) to create alternative cooperation frameworks
- Sectoral Compartmentalization: Separate economic, security, and diplomatic relationships to maintain engagement flexibility
- Principle-Based Positioning: Emphasize rules-based order and international law rather than power-based alignments
Singapore’s Agency Assessment
Limited but Significant – Singapore retains substantial maneuvering room through economic importance and diplomatic skill, but faces increasing constraints.
Scenario 2: The Managed Competition Scenario (Probability: Medium)
Scenario Description
Great powers establish informal guardrails for competition, allowing for rivalry within boundaries that prevent regional fragmentation. Civilian security cooperation becomes a recognized domain of competition but with agreed limits.
Key Characteristics
- Competition remains intense but predictable
- Regional institutions adapt to accommodate dual partnerships
- Clear protocols emerge for managing overlapping security commitments
- Middle powers successfully maintain strategic autonomy through institutional frameworks
Implications for Singapore
Opportunities:
- Enhanced Mediator Role: Singapore becomes a crucial bridge between competing powers
- Institutional Innovation: Leadership opportunities in creating new frameworks for managing competition
- Economic Leverage: Continued access to both economic systems enhances Singapore’s value proposition
Strategic Responses:
- Framework Development: Lead creation of “Competition Management Protocols” within ASEAN
- Neutral Platform Strategy: Position Singapore as the premier venue for great power dialogue
- Capacity Building: Invest in conflict prevention and mediation capabilities
Singapore’s Agency Assessment
High – Singapore can actively shape the competitive environment while maintaining strategic autonomy.
Scenario 3: The Civilian Security Arms Race Scenario (Probability: Medium)
Scenario Description
Competition in civilian security cooperation intensifies dramatically, with great powers racing to establish dominant partnerships. Technology transfer, surveillance capabilities, and data sharing become key battlegrounds.
Key Characteristics
- Rapid expansion of civilian security partnerships across all domains
- Technology becomes increasingly central to security cooperation
- Surveillance and data governance emerge as major sovereignty issues
- Regional states struggle to manage competing offers and pressures
Implications for Singapore
New Challenges:
- Technology Sovereignty: Managing competing demands for data sharing and surveillance cooperation
- Privacy vs Security: Balancing domestic values with international security partnerships
- Capability Overflow: Risk of over-dependence on foreign security technologies
Strategic Responses:
- Indigenous Capability Development: Invest heavily in domestic cybersecurity and surveillance technologies
- Data Governance Leadership: Develop model frameworks for international data sharing that protect sovereignty
- Selective Engagement: Strategic choice of civilian security partnerships based on clear criteria
Singapore’s Agency Assessment
Moderate – Singapore’s technological capabilities provide leverage, but rapid pace of competition creates decision pressures.
Scenario 4: The Multilateral Renaissance Scenario (Probability: Low-Medium)
Scenario Description
Regional states successfully push back against bilateral great power competition, strengthening multilateral institutions and creating inclusive security arrangements that accommodate all major powers.
Key Characteristics
- ASEAN centrality strengthens through institutional innovation
- New multilateral civilian security frameworks emerge
- Great powers accept constraints on competitive behavior
- Middle power coalition-building succeeds in shaping regional order
Implications for Singapore
Strategic Advantages:
- Institutional Leadership: Singapore’s diplomatic capabilities become more valuable
- Reduced Pressure: Less need for difficult alignment choices
- Economic Optimization: Continued access to all markets and partnerships
Strategic Responses:
- Coalition Building: Lead efforts to strengthen middle power cooperation (ASEAN Plus mechanisms)
- Institutional Innovation: Develop new models for inclusive security cooperation
- Norm Entrepreneurship: Promote principles that constrain great power competition
Singapore’s Agency Assessment
Very High – Singapore operates in its optimal strategic environment with maximum flexibility and influence.
Cross-Scenario Strategic Imperatives for Singapore
Core Principles
- Principled Hedging: As one analyst notes, Singapore practices “principled hedging” that avoids choosing between Washington and Beijing while maximizing gains from cooperating with both powers
- Agency Preservation: Following former Thai Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman’s wisdom that without agency, smaller countries become “mere pawns of different size”
- Institutional Centrality: Maintaining Singapore’s role as a neutral venue and honest broker
Adaptive Strategies Across Scenarios
Economic Statecraft
- Scenario 1: Accelerate economic diversification and develop alternative supply chains
- Scenario 2: Leverage economic centrality for diplomatic influence
- Scenario 3: Invest in economic resilience and technological sovereignty
- Scenario 4: Maximize economic integration while leading institutional development
Diplomatic Positioning
- Scenario 1: Emphasize neutrality and principles over power alignments
- Scenario 2: Serve as bridge-builder and conflict manager
- Scenario 3: Focus on capability building and selective partnerships
- Scenario 4: Lead multilateral institution strengthening
Security Cooperation
- Scenario 1: Maintain defense relationships with multiple partners while avoiding provocative alignments
- Scenario 2: Develop frameworks for managing overlapping security commitments
- Scenario 3: Build indigenous capabilities while engaging selectively with foreign partners
- Scenario 4: Champion inclusive security architectures
Key Decision Points for Singapore
Immediate Strategic Choices (2025-2027)
- ASEAN Leadership: How actively to push for stronger ASEAN positions on great power competition
- Technology Partnerships: Which civilian security technologies to develop with which partners
- Diplomatic Initiatives: Whether to launch major peace-building or framework-development initiatives
Medium-Term Positioning (2027-2030)
- Economic Architecture: How to position Singapore within competing economic blocs
- Security Relationships: Managing the balance between US, Chinese, and indigenous capabilities
- Institutional Innovation: Leading development of new frameworks for competition management
Long-Term Strategic Vision (2030+)
- Regional Order: Singapore’s role in shaping the post-competition regional architecture
- Global Positioning: How to maintain relevance as great power dynamics evolve
- Normative Leadership: Singapore’s contribution to international law and governance
Conclusion
The Pacific policing competition demonstrates how great power rivalry is expanding into previously non-competitive domains. For Singapore, this creates both challenges and opportunities. The key to successful navigation lies in:
- Maintaining Strategic Flexibility: Avoiding premature commitments that limit future options
- Building Coalitions: Working with other middle powers to preserve space for non-alignment
- Investing in Capabilities: Developing indigenous strengths that provide leverage with all partners
- Leading Institutionally: Using Singapore’s convening power to shape competitive dynamics rather than simply react to them
Success will depend on Singapore’s ability to adapt its hedging strategy to changing circumstances while preserving its core interests in sovereignty, prosperity, and regional stability. The civilian security domain represents both a new challenge and a new opportunity for strategic statecraft.
The Third Path: A Singapore Story
Set in 2028, three years after the Pacific policing competition intensified
Chapter 1: The Invitation
Minister Lim Wei Chen stood at the floor-to-ceiling windows of the Istana, watching the morning joggers circle the Padang below. The secure phone on her desk buzzed—two missed calls from Washington, three from Beijing, and one from Canberra. All in the past hour.
“Ma’am, the Ambassador from Solomon Islands is here for the 9 AM,” her aide announced.
“Send him in, Sarah. And hold all calls for the next thirty minutes.”
Ambassador Jeremiah Taro entered with the careful formality of a diplomat carrying sensitive cargo. After the usual pleasantries, he leaned forward.
“Minister, my government has a proposal. We’d like Singapore to consider hosting the first Pacific-ASEAN Civilian Security Dialogue.”
Lim’s expression didn’t change, but her mind raced. Three years ago, such a request would have been routine—Singapore hosted dozens of regional dialogues annually. But since the Pacific had become a chessboard for great power competition, nothing was routine anymore.
“Tell me more about this dialogue, Ambassador.”
“Eight Pacific nations, all ten ASEAN members. The focus would be developing common principles for civilian security cooperation—standards that protect sovereignty while enabling necessary partnerships.” Taro paused. “We’ve learned from what happened in the Solomons. Too many bilateral deals, too little coordination. Small countries need frameworks that preserve our agency.”
Lim nodded slowly. “And the great powers’ reaction to such a framework?”
“That’s exactly why we need Singapore to lead this, Minister. You understand the art of saying yes to everyone while serving your own interests.”
Chapter 2: The Calculation
That afternoon, Lim convened her strategy team in the Ministry’s secure conference room. The walls displayed real-time updates from their diplomatic posts: Chinese police advisors were now embedded in twelve Pacific nations; Australia had tripled its policing aid budget; the US was quietly establishing FBI liaison offices across Oceania.
“Assessments?” she asked.
James Tan, her deputy, spoke first. “High risk, high reward. If we succeed in creating genuine multilateral frameworks, we demonstrate that middle power leadership can still shape great power competition. If we fail…”
“We get blamed by everyone for trying,” finished Dr. Sarah Krishnan, the Ministry’s chief analyst. “But consider the alternative—if we don’t act, the Pacific fragments completely. That precedent comes to Southeast Asia next.”
Lim pulled up a classified briefing on the wall screen. “Intelligence suggests both Beijing and Washington are preparing major civilian security initiatives for ASEAN. Not just policing—cybersecurity, surveillance technology, data governance. The Pacific was just the opening move.”
The room fell silent. Everyone understood: ASEAN’s unity—and Singapore’s strategic space—hung in the balance.
“So we’re not just hosting a dialogue about the Pacific,” James said quietly. “We’re pilot-testing frameworks for our own survival.”
Chapter 3: The Dance
Two weeks later, Singapore’s diplomatic machinery moved with characteristic precision. Lim found herself shuttling between carefully choreographed meetings.
Monday: US Deputy Secretary of State Patricia Chen landed at Changi. Over dinner at the Raffles Hotel, she was direct.
“Singapore hosting this dialogue—we appreciate the multilateral approach. But let’s be clear about red lines. Any framework that legitimizes authoritarian policing models is a non-starter.”
Tuesday: Chinese Vice Minister of Public Security Li Xiaoming arrived on the morning flight from Beijing. His message over tea at the Shangri-La was equally direct.
“Cooperation frameworks are welcome, provided they don’t become tools for containment. China’s contributions to regional security deserve recognition, not restriction.”
Wednesday: Australian Foreign Minister Rebecca Walsh, calling from Canberra, was blunt: “We support Singapore’s leadership, but this can’t become a way to launder Chinese surveillance exports.”
Thursday: Samoan High Commissioner Faamatalaupu Toleafoa, visiting from Wellington, offered a different perspective over lunch at Newton Food Centre: “Minister, we small countries are tired of being chess pieces. Give us frameworks that let us choose partnerships based on our needs, not great power politics.”
By Friday, Lim had heard variations of the same theme from fifteen diplomatic missions. Everyone wanted frameworks—as long as those frameworks served their interests.
Chapter 4: The Innovation
The breakthrough came during a late-night strategy session. Dr. Krishnan was sketching diagrams on the conference room whiteboard, trying to visualize how to satisfy incompatible demands.
“What if,” she said, pausing mid-sentence, “we’re thinking about this wrong? Everyone assumes frameworks must be binding and exclusive. But what if we created opt-in, modular standards?”
“Explain,” Lim said.
“Think of it like Singapore’s smart city architecture—layered, interoperable, but not monolithic. Countries could adopt pieces that work for them. Transparency standards separate from technology partnerships. Human rights protocols separate from capacity building.”
James caught on immediately. “So a country could commit to transparency standards while partnering with China on equipment, or adopt human rights protocols while working with Australia on training.”
“Exactly. Great powers get their cooperation, small countries get their sovereignty, and we get frameworks that actually function instead of noble documents everyone ignores.”
Lim stared at the whiteboard. “It’s elegant. But will anyone accept it?”
“Only one way to find out.”
Chapter 5: The Conference
Six months later, the Marina Bay Sands Convention Centre buzzed with controlled tension. Eighteen nations had sent delegations; observers from the UN, ASEAN Secretariat, and Pacific Islands Forum filled the observer seats. The global media waited for Singapore to either demonstrate middle power leadership or fail spectacularly.
Lim opened the conference with words she had tested in dozens of diplomatic conversations: “We gather not to choose sides, but to expand choices. Not to limit partnerships, but to improve them.”
The first day nearly collapsed when the Chinese delegation walked out after the Australian representative criticized “surveillance exports.” But Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manele, drawing on his own experience managing competing donors, stood up.
“With respect to our friends from the great powers,” he said, his voice carrying across the silent hall, “this is exactly why we need these frameworks. We small countries are tired of being collateral damage in your competition.”
The walkout became a breakthrough. When the Chinese delegation returned after lunch, they found Pacific and ASEAN nations had spent the break developing their own proposals—frameworks designed by small countries, for small countries.
Chapter 6: The Framework
The Singapore Standards for Civilian Security Cooperation, signed three days later, were unlike any previous international agreement. Instead of binding commitments, they created a menu of voluntary standards:
Tier 1 – Transparency: Public reporting on all civilian security partnerships Tier 2 – Sovereignty: Veto power over data sharing and surveillance activities
Tier 3 – Reciprocity: Equal access to training and equipment regardless of donor Tier 4 – Sustainability: Local capacity building requirements in all partnerships
Countries could adopt any combination. Great powers could partner with anyone, but only under standards the receiving country had chosen to implement.
“It’s not perfect,” Lim admitted to her team as they watched delegations sign the framework. “But it’s adaptive. It gives small countries tools to manage competition instead of being victims of it.”
Within months, the framework was being tested. Vanuatu adopted all four tiers and used them to renegotiate both its Chinese and Australian partnerships on more favorable terms. Kiribati chose selective standards that let them maintain Chinese technical assistance while requiring transparency. Fiji used the framework to bring back controlled Chinese cooperation while maintaining sovereignty safeguards.
Most importantly, the great powers adapted. China began offering more flexible partnerships to meet transparency standards. Australia developed new models that satisfied sovereignty requirements. The US found ways to provide capacity building that met sustainability criteria.
Epilogue: The Precedent
One year later, Lim stood again at her office window, this time watching construction crews working on the new ASEAN Digital Governance Center—Singapore’s latest institutional innovation, based on the modular framework model.
Her aide knocked. “Minister, the Foreign Minister of Thailand is calling. They want to discuss adapting the Singapore Standards for cybersecurity partnerships in ASEAN.”
Lim smiled. The Pacific policing competition had taught Singapore—and the region—that you don’t have to choose between great power partnerships and strategic autonomy. You just have to be clever enough to create frameworks that give everyone what they need while preserving what you can’t afford to lose.
The civilian security domain had indeed represented both challenge and opportunity. Singapore had turned the challenge into the opportunity—not by avoiding great power competition, but by creating the rules that made competition less destructive for everyone else.
As she picked up the call from Bangkok, Lim reflected on an old Singaporean maxim: when you can’t control the game, change the rules. Sometimes, that’s exactly what strategic statecraft looks like.
The Third Path—Singapore’s path—wasn’t about choosing sides. It was about creating space for choices in a world that seemed determined to eliminate them.
“Success will depend on Singapore’s ability to adapt its hedging strategy to changing circumstances while preserving its core interests in sovereignty, prosperity, and regional stability.”
– From the classified brief that inspired the Singapore Standards
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritising individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialised mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritised every step of the way.